Comments on: Files http://www.grazingchaos.org/2005/06/09/files/ grazing chaos, mental masturbation at its stickiest Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:32:30 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Viagra http://www.grazingchaos.org/2005/06/09/files/#comment-11173 Viagra Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:21:50 +0000 http://grazingchaos.org/Documents/?p=3#comment-11173 <strong>Viagra...</strong> Online pharmacies gruesome online pharmacies.... Viagra…

Online pharmacies gruesome online pharmacies….

]]> By: Prof. Snafu Halitosis http://www.grazingchaos.org/2005/06/09/files/#comment-19 Prof. Snafu Halitosis Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:49:48 +0000 http://grazingchaos.org/Documents/?p=3#comment-19 Yes I agree that only a god could be truly objective, and thus it is really a nonsense word (but one that is used constantly by people). As for paradoxes, I think they exist when I'm not on drugs. I'm not going to get into that right now but expect a post on it in the future. Yes I agree that only a god could be truly objective, and thus it is really a nonsense word (but one that is used constantly by people). As for paradoxes, I think they exist when I’m not on drugs. I’m not going to get into that right now but expect a post on it in the future.

]]> By: Nathan http://www.grazingchaos.org/2005/06/09/files/#comment-18 Nathan Sun, 26 Jun 2005 03:05:40 +0000 http://grazingchaos.org/Documents/?p=3#comment-18 Eh, I think I typed what I was seeing rather than what I was thinking in the first section of my last comment. I think I meant to say, "*That* definition of objectivity was made *using* subjectivity" and delete up to the comma. Or something like that. God, I need to get Focus Factor or something. Eh, I think I typed what I was seeing rather than what I was thinking in the first section of my last comment. I think I meant to say, “*That* definition of objectivity was made *using* subjectivity” and delete up to the comma. Or something like that.

God, I need to get Focus Factor or something.

]]> By: Nathan http://www.grazingchaos.org/2005/06/09/files/#comment-17 Nathan Sun, 26 Jun 2005 03:02:14 +0000 http://grazingchaos.org/Documents/?p=3#comment-17 To me, that is a particularily odd definition. The definition of objectivity was made assuming subjectivity is dependant on one's mind, and objectivity determined by not using your own perceptions, which is all we have. So far as I know, only (a) God would be able to do that, and I haven't met any recently. As one cannot not be dependent on their mind for existence, based on that definition, I would declare that either objectivity does not exist or I am not real. The definition says I cannot make a logical argument because nothing is for certain; that is nihilistic. I know what I see is what I see. Whether or not other minds see it or not doesn't matter, because it's my mind. The "to me" at the beginning of this comment is what defines everyone's existence. That "to me" is what allowed someone to declare objectivity not being based on the "to me". I view objectivity from context as "solid and unchangeable", while subjectivity is just that: liquid, moving, changing, not always solid. I've found contradictions and paradoxes existing in reality are normally caused by the perceiver to be on drugs (of any type) and/or hallucinating. That's illogistic. Try functioning on it in every day life :). To me, that is a particularily odd definition. The definition of objectivity was made assuming subjectivity is dependant on one’s mind, and objectivity determined by not using your own perceptions, which is all we have. So far as I know, only (a) God would be able to do that, and I haven’t met any recently. As one cannot not be dependent on their mind for existence, based on that definition, I would declare that either objectivity does not exist or I am not real.

The definition says I cannot make a logical argument because nothing is for certain; that is nihilistic. I know what I see is what I see. Whether or not other minds see it or not doesn’t matter, because it’s my mind.

The “to me” at the beginning of this comment is what defines everyone’s existence. That “to me” is what allowed someone to declare objectivity not being based on the “to me”.

I view objectivity from context as “solid and unchangeable”, while subjectivity is just that: liquid, moving, changing, not always solid.

I’ve found contradictions and paradoxes existing in reality are normally caused by the perceiver to be on drugs (of any type) and/or hallucinating. That’s illogistic. Try functioning on it in every day life :) .

]]> By: Prof. Snafu Halitosis http://www.grazingchaos.org/2005/06/09/files/#comment-15 Prof. Snafu Halitosis Fri, 24 Jun 2005 04:29:05 +0000 http://grazingchaos.org/Documents/?p=3#comment-15 I think we're getting lost in semantics here. Gauging objectivity must be from every perspective because that's what objectivity means: "not dependent on the mind for existence; actual : a matter of objective fact" what you're calling objective is what subjectivity is: "dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence." But this renders the word objectivity meaningless since everything is dependent on the mind for existence. Perhaps that's not true but I have yet to hear a convincing argument to the contrary. I think we acutally agree on this point. It's just that since you're aware that nothing exists beyond the mind you call your perceptions objective, and you may be right to do so. It's a curious point. As for your second point, stating that there are no absolutes is indeed a contradiction. But I for one believe in contradictions, in paradoxes. There seems to be a lot of things out there that appear to contradict themselves, and I sort of think that paradox is the basis of all reality in a weird way that I can't really explain. There may be a logic and order to the universe, I'm sure there is in some sense. And maybe that logic actually shows that all things that appear to be paradoxes do in fact make sense. Unfortunately, whatever that logic may be it currently eludes my mental grasp. I think we’re getting lost in semantics here. Gauging objectivity must be from every perspective because that’s what objectivity means:
“not dependent on the mind for existence; actual : a matter of objective fact”

what you’re calling objective is what subjectivity is:
“dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for its existence.”

But this renders the word objectivity meaningless since everything is dependent on the mind for existence. Perhaps that’s not true but I have yet to hear a convincing argument to the contrary.

I think we acutally agree on this point. It’s just that since you’re aware that nothing exists beyond the mind you call your perceptions objective, and you may be right to do so. It’s a curious point.

As for your second point, stating that there are no absolutes is indeed a contradiction. But I for one believe in contradictions, in paradoxes. There seems to be a lot of things out there that appear to contradict themselves, and I sort of think that paradox is the basis of all reality in a weird way that I can’t really explain. There may be a logic and order to the universe, I’m sure there is in some sense. And maybe that logic actually shows that all things that appear to be paradoxes do in fact make sense. Unfortunately, whatever that logic may be it currently eludes my mental grasp.

]]> By: Nathan http://www.grazingchaos.org/2005/06/09/files/#comment-14 Nathan Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:26:11 +0000 http://grazingchaos.org/Documents/?p=3#comment-14 You can define objectvity by the moment, as I view things only in the sense of present. I follow linear time & schedules, etc., for convienence. In any given present moment I can tell you what I see. To me, that is objective. I know it happened. Whether or not anyone else saw it happen doesn't matter to me. I have a hard time understanding why gauging objectivity must be from every perspective. I'm rarely every perspective (and when I am, I'll be enlightened! :P) but even in that state you still retain individuality in a certain way. Stating that there are no absolutes is a contradiction, because that is an absolute. Contradictions cannot exist in actual life - they are warped perceptions, begging you to check your premises to see that. There is a logic and order to the universe. Nothing would function without it. You can define objectvity by the moment, as I view things only in the sense of present. I follow linear time & schedules, etc., for convienence. In any given present moment I can tell you what I see. To me, that is objective. I know it happened. Whether or not anyone else saw it happen doesn’t matter to me. I have a hard time understanding why gauging objectivity must be from every perspective. I’m rarely every perspective (and when I am, I’ll be enlightened! :P ) but even in that state you still retain individuality in a certain way.

Stating that there are no absolutes is a contradiction, because that is an absolute. Contradictions cannot exist in actual life – they are warped perceptions, begging you to check your premises to see that. There is a logic and order to the universe. Nothing would function without it.

]]> By: Prof. Snafu Halitosis http://www.grazingchaos.org/2005/06/09/files/#comment-11 Prof. Snafu Halitosis Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:39:45 +0000 http://grazingchaos.org/Documents/?p=3#comment-11 Yes indeed it does have everything to do with individual perceptions, but if you think about it there aren't really any absolutes. Once something has occurred it can exist only in records(records being actual physical evidence, or memories) and since no record ever contains everything that happened at a particular moment from every perspective there is never any way to objectively determine an absolute. There is no objectivity, only subjectivity. Yes indeed it does have everything to do with individual perceptions, but if you think about it there aren’t really any absolutes. Once something has occurred it can exist only in records(records being actual physical evidence, or memories) and since no record ever contains everything that happened at a particular moment from every perspective there is never any way to objectively determine an absolute. There is no objectivity, only subjectivity.

]]> By: Melinda http://www.grazingchaos.org/2005/06/09/files/#comment-4 Melinda Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://grazingchaos.org/Documents/?p=3#comment-4 Interesting idea....I also wonder about what we do and don't know from history. Everything written is subjective. Are we missing some important moments in our history? All this Deep Throat stuff is making me wonder about Watergate and if there was even more that we are not aware. Guess we'll never know....oh, and I can relate to the insurance claim issue. Interesting idea….I also wonder about what we do and don’t know from history. Everything written is subjective. Are we missing some important moments in our history? All this Deep Throat stuff is making me wonder about Watergate and if there was even more that we are not aware. Guess we’ll never know….oh, and I can relate to the insurance claim issue.

]]> By: Nathan http://www.grazingchaos.org/2005/06/09/files/#comment-5 Nathan Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://grazingchaos.org/Documents/?p=3#comment-5 I automatically connect that to individual perceptions, and that it's hard to gauge absolutes using more than one perception I automatically connect that to individual perceptions, and that it’s hard to gauge absolutes using more than one perception

]]>